Lecture upon the controversy between Pennsylvania and Virginia, about the boundary line: delivered at the University building, December 5th, 1843

LECTURE

t'PON THE

CONTROVERSY

BETWEEN

PENNSYLVANIA AND VIRGINIA,

ABOUT THE

BOUNDARY LINE:

DELIVERED AT THE UNIVERSITY BUILDING, DECEMBER §th, 1848.

BY

NEVILLE B. CRAIG,

Corresponding Secretary of the Historical Society of Western Pennsylvania.

PITTSBURGH:

PRINTED BY A. JAYNES— FRANKLIN HEAD— OPPOSITE POST-OFFICE.

1843.

LECTU RE.

Ladies and Gentlemen: —

OF the large and respectable audience now assembled
here, there is perhaps not one individual who has not read the history
of the rise and progress of Rome, of the increase of her power and
of the gradual extension of her boundary, so as first to embrace the
petty domains of her neighbors; then all Italy, and finally that vast
territory which extends from the Western Ocean to the Euphrates,
and from Mount Atlas to the Danube and the mountains of Caledonia.
The history of that haughty nation which fought and conquered two
thousand years ago, and at the distance of many thousand miles from
us, is familiar to our school-boys; and yet it is probable that there are
now present some intelligent persons who are not aware that an angry
controversy raged, not more than seventy years ago, between Penn-
sylvanians and Virginians, for the territory in and around this city.
A still larger number, no doubt, are uninformed as to the origin of
that controversy, the grounds of the claims of the different parties,
and the mode and the terms of the final arrangement. That there
should be a want of general, correct information, is not, under the cir-
cumstances, very remarkable. The controversy commenced while
these States were colonies; the terms of the compromise were agreed
upon during our struggle for independence, and attracted less attention
among the more exciting events of the war of the Revolution. Since
that time, so far as my research has extended, no full and accurate
notice of the controversy has been published. Mr. Barton, in his
Memoirs of Rittenhouse, has several references to the matter; and the
late Judge Brackenridge, in his Law Miscellanies, has a short chapter
devoted to the subject. But both those writers have permitted some
errors to find places in their publications. It has occurred to me that
a plain, unvarnished history of a controversy about the very soil upon
which we stand, would not be less interesting to the audience now
assembled, than even a more ornate notice of some ancient or far-
distant nation.

I proceed, therefore, to give a very plain, though, I trust, accurate
account of that dispute, and shall labor to make it as intelligible, as
the fear of being tedious will permit. In the year 1606, James the
First granted to the London and Plymouth Companies the privilege
of making two settlements on any part of the coast of America,
between the thirty-fourth and forty-fifth degrees of North latitude,
the whole of which country was called Virginia. Under this orant,
the former Company made a settlement at Jamestown, and thus
became entitled, under the terms of the grant, to territory one hun-
dred miles square.

Considering this extent of territory too contracted for their pur-
poses, the Company applied for a further enlargement of their grant,
and in 1609, an additional grant was made to them in the following
terms: — "All those lands, countries and territories, situate, lying and
being in that part of America called Virginia, from the Point of
land called Point Comfort, all along the sea-coast to the Northward
two hundred miles, and from the said Point Comfort, to the South-
ward, two hundred miles, and all that space and circuit of land
lying from the sea-coast of the precinct aforesaid, up into the land
throughout, from sea to sea, West and North-West. '

In 1623, a Writ of Quo Warranto was issued against the Com-
pany from the Court of King's Bench, which was decided against
it the next year. By this decision, the Company was dissolved,
and the land within the limits of the grant, with the exception
of such tracts as had been granted to settlers, reverted to the Crown.
Against this decision the Company seems never to have made any
objection.

In 1632, Charles the First granted to Lord Baltimore, the present
territory of Maryland, which greatly encroached upon the bounds of
the grant to the London Company; yet against this grant neither
that Company nor the Colonial Legislature made any opposition.
This is only material in this place, as showing the submission of
those interested, and as proving that the decision on the Quo War-
ranto was acquiesced in as legal.

In 1680, the grant was made to William Penn, of "All that tract
or part of land in America, with all the islands therein contained,
as the same is bounded on the East by Delaware river, from twelve
miles Northward of New Castletown, unto the three and fortieth
degree of Northern latitude, if the said river doth extend so far North-
wards; but if the said river shall not extend so far Northwards, then

by the said river so far as it does extend; and from the head of the
said river, the Eastern bounds are to be determined by a meridian
line to be drawn from the head of said river unto the said three and
fortieth degree. The said lands to extend Westward Jive degrees
in longitude, to be computed from the said Eastern bounds; and
the said land to be bounded on the North by the beginning of the
three and fortieth degree of Northern latitude, and on the South by
a circle drawn at twelve miles distance from New Castle, North-
ward and Westward, unto the beginning of the fortieth degree of
Northern latitude, and then by a straight line Westward to the limits
of longitude above mentioned."

In this description of the territory granted to Penn, there is no
vagueness or uncertainty, except in one particular, and that is to the
Western boundary. The words are, "Said lands to extend West-
ward five degrees in longitude, to be computed from the said
Eastern bounds." Now as the Eastern "bounds" is the Dela-
ware river, which in its meandering course varies its longitude more
than forty miles, the questions soon occurred, from what point on
the Delaware shall the five degrees of longitude be computed? shall
the Western boundary be a meridian, or shall it be a crooked line
corresponding to the curves of the Delaware, and distant from it five
degrees of longitude at every corresponding point? These and other
questions would naturally occur, in interpreting the words defining
the Western boundaries of Pennsylvania.

I have before mentioned that the territory of Virginia, as granted
to the London Company, with the exception of land actually granted
to settlers, had reverted to the Crown by the judgment on the Writ
of Quo Warranto. I have also stated that in 1632, forty-eight
years before the grant was made to Penn, Maryland was granted
to Lord Baltimore. In the latter grant, the Northern boundary is a
right-line drawn from that part of the Delaware Bay which lieth
under the fortieth degree of latitude, due West to the meridian of
the first fountain of the river Potomac. Here, then, is an inter-
ference of boundary lines between Penn and Lord Baltimore. Penn
had a grant to the beginning of the fortieth degree of North latitude;
while Baltimore had a grant to pass beyond the beginning of that
degree, and to extend some indefinite distance under it. In 1769,
after a long and vexatious controversy, the boundary was fixed at
latitude 39° 43' 42" being the line so famous in late days, as Mason
and Dixon's line. But although the prior charter to Lord Baltimore

prevailed over the later grant to Perm, throughout the entire length
of the province of Maryland, there was no good reason why the
South boundary of Pennsylvania, West of Maryland, should not con-
form to the charter, and extend South to latitude thirty-nine degrees,
being the beginning of the fortieth degree. The grant to the London
Company having been annulled, and the territory included in it hav-
ing reverted to the Crown, there was no dispute between rival
Grantees, as in the case of Maryland; no question about priority of
grants; but the simple point to be settled was this, — does the charter
to Penn include the territory in dispute?

Having thus made such preliminary remarks as were necessary
o render the controversy between Virginia and Pennsylvania easily
intelligible, I will proceed to the account of that matter.

In 1752, the Proprietors of Pennsylvania understanding that the
Governor of Virginia was about to erect a Fort at the Forks of the
Ohio, now Pittsburgh, to repel the incursions of the French, in-
structed their Governor, Hamilton, to render any assistance in his
power, taking, however, an acknowledgment from Virginia, that any
settlement made should not be construed to the prejudice of the
vight of the Penns. Of these instructions, Gov. Hamilton imme-
diately gave Gov. Dinwiddie notice. Nearly two years later, in
1754, Gov. Dinwiddie being prepared to commence building the
Fort at the Forks, issued a proclamation promising to lay out two
hundred thousand acres of land, in and near this place, to be divided
among those who would enlist in the service against the French.
Upon receiving a copy of this proclamation, Gov. Hamilton, on the
13th of March, 1754, wrote to Gov. Dinwiddie, reminding him of
his former intimation respecting the lands, and requesting such an
acknowledgment as the Proprietaries had before suggested.

On the 21st of March, 1754, Gov. Dinwiddie replied: in his letter
he said, "I am much misled by our Surveyors, if the Forks of the
Monongahela be within the limits of your Proprietaries' grant. I
have for some time written home, to have the line run, — to have the
boundaries properly known, &c. In the mean time, that no hinder-
ance may be given to our intended expedition, it is highly reasonable,
if these lands are in your Proprietor's grant, that the settlers should
pay the quit-rent to Mr. Penn, and not to His Majesty. And there-
fore, as far as in my power lies, I agree thereto, after the time granted
by my proclamation, to be clear of quit-rent, ceases."

These proceedings (1752, '54) were the first acts by the provincial

government of Virginia, in which any jurisdiction was claimed over
the Western Territory; and, as is above stated, they were promptly
met by Gov. Hamilton; so that there was not the slightest shadow of
ground for the allegation of acquiescence, as subsequently made by
Lord Dunmore.

Within a month after Mr. Dinwiddie's last letter to Gov. Hamilton
was written, Monsieur Contrecreur, at the head of a large number of
French and Indians, descended the Allegheny river from Fort Ve-
nango, — captured Ensign Ward, with his little band of forty men, —
and took formal possession of the country around the head of the
OHIO. Subsequently, followed Washington's first campaign, from
Fort Cumberland towards the Monongahela; and finally, his surren-
der to the French at Fort Necessity on the fourth day of July, 1754.
From that date the French remained in possession of the country
around the head of the Ohio; and all settlements, by English or
Americans, were prevented, until Gen. Forbes, in November, 1758,
drove the enemy from Fort Duquesne, and took possession of the
country. From that time until 1774, no difficulty occurred between
Virginia and Pennsylvania, in relation to the boundary. The lands
in the neighborhood of Pittsburgh were surveyed for the Proprie-
taries early in 1769; magistrates were appointed in the beginning of
1771, and entered upon, and continued in the exercise of their duties
for some time, without molestation. As the difficulties, however, be-
tween the mother country and the colonies increased, the British gov-
ernment deemed it advisable to order the abandonment of Fort Pitt,
and the withdrawal of the troops from this place. The Fort being
thus abandoned, one John Connolly, a man of much energy and tal-
ent, but without principle, came here from Virginia, about the end of
the year 1773 or beginning of '74, having authority from Lord Dun-
more, Governor of that State, took possession of the Fort, calling it
Fort Dunmore; and as Captain Commandant of the Militia, issued
his proclamation, calling on the people to meet him, as a Militia, on
the 25th January, 1774. For so doing, Arthur St. Clair, one of the
magistrates of Westmoreland county, Pennsylvania, issued a warrant
against him, and had him committed to the jail at Hanna's town, the
seat of Justice of Westmoreland county, which embraced this place ;
from which, however, he was soon released, by entering bail for his
appearance at Court.

Information of these transactions was transmitted to the Governor,
John Pcnn, by express, who, on the 31st of January, 1774, wrote a

8

letter to Lord Dunmore, urging him to refrain from appointing officers
at Pittsburgh, and suffer matters to remain as they were, until a tempo-
rary Boundary-line could be run by Commissioners to be appointed
by both governments. This letter has never, to my knowledge, ap-
peared in print; the copy which I hold in my hand, having been pro-
cured by me from the office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth.
The following portion of it will be found interesting, as showing the
measures adopted by Mr. John Penn, to ascertain whether Pittsburgh
was within the chartered limits of Pennsylvania.

"The Western Extent of the Province of Pennsylvania, by the
Royal Grant, is five degrees of Longitude from the River Delaware,
which is its Eastern boundary. In the year 1768, an East and West
line was run from Delaware, at the mouth of Christiana Creek, to the
crossing of Dunkard Creek, a branch of the Monongahela, by Messrs.
Dixon and Mason, two Surveyors of distinction, who were sent over
from England to run the Division-Line between Maryland and Penn-
sylvania. These Artists fixed the Latitude and Extent of that Line
with the utmost exactness and precision, — to the satisfaction of the
Commissioners on both sides.

" From the 233d Mile-stone on this Line, a North Line hath since
been carefully run and measured to the Ohio, and from thence up to
Fort Pitt: the several courses of the river have been taken with all
possible care. From the line of Dixon and Mason, to a known point
in the South line of the city of Philadelphia, the true course and dis-
tance hath been discovered by actual survey, as also from the point
aforesaid to that part of the river Delaware which is in the same lati-
tude as Fort Pitt; and from these several data, the most exact calcu-
lations have been made by Dr. Smith, Provost of our College, — Mr.
Rittenhouse, and our Surveyor General — in order to ascertain the dif-
ference of longitude between Delaware and Pittsburgh; who all agree,
that the latter is near six miles Eastward of the Western extent
of the Province.

" The better to illustrate this matter, and enable your Lordship to
form a judgment of the accuracy with which the work has been done
and the calculations made, I have enclosed a map or draught of the
several lines above mentioned, with explanatory notes, as delivered
by them to me."

The conclusion arrived at by the calculations of Messrs. Ritten-
house, Smith and Lukens, that Pittsburgh was "near six miles

within" the boundary claimed by John Penn, proves to be remarka-
bly accurate.

Indeed, so far as I can judge by the best Maps of the State, I
presume Penn's curved line, parallel to the Delaware, would cross
the Ohio river between five arid six miles below this city.

How strongly does this accuracy of John Penn contrast with the
vague, rash and unfounded claim set up by Lord Dunmore, in his
correspondence with Messrs^ Tilghm'ari and Allen, as will be imme-
diately related.

The Map referred to in John Penn's letter, could not be found
at HarrisbUrgh, though diligent search was made, and though I have
some time since applied to a friend at Richmond, I have not suc-
ceeded in obtaining a copy.

To the letter of John Penn, Lord Dunrnore replied on the 3d of
March, 1774: he contended that in 1753, '54, Pennsylvania had ad-
mitted the better title of Virginia to the country in dispute; declared
that he could not defer the appointment of such other officers as
may be deemed necessary for the good government of this section
of country, arid insisted that Mr. St. Clair should be punished by
dismissal from office, unless he could prevail upon Connolly to
apply for his pardon.

Gov. Penn, in his reply, dated March 31st, contended that the Pro-
prietary of Pennsylvania had not admitted the claim of Virginia to be
good, but had expressly denied it. He also thus states the claim of
the Proprietaries of Pennsylvania: — "The Proprietaries of Pennsyl-
vania do claim, as part of their province,- all the lands lying West of a
South line to be drawn from Mason and Dixon's line, as it is com-
monly called, at the Western-most part of the province of Maryland,
to the beginning of the fortieth degree of North latitude, to the
extent of five degrees of longitude from the Delaware."

The Governor also declined to remove Mr. St. Clair, whom he
pronounced to be an honest, worthy man, who had served His
Majesty in the Regulars, with reputation. It may be as well to
mention here, that this Mr. St. Clair is the same person who has
long since been well known as Gen. St. Clair, and who was almost
equally distinguished by his talents, social virtues, services and hard
fortune.

While this correspondence was. passing between Mr. Penn and

Lord Dunmore, Connolly had gone to Staunton, and was sworn
2

10

m as a Justice of the Peace, of Augusta county, Virginia, in which,
it was alleged, the country around Pittsburgh was embraced. To-
wards the latter part of March, he returned to this place, with both
civil and military authority, to put the laws of Virginia in force.
About the fifth of April, the Court assembled at Hanna's town, the
seat of Justice for Westmoreland county, Pennsylvania. Soon after,
Connolly, with about one hundred and fifty men, all armed and with
colors flying, appeared there; placed sentinels at the door of the
Court-house, who refused to admit the magistrates, unless with the
consent of their commander. A meeting then took place between
Connolly and the magistrates, in which the former stated that he had
come there in fulfilment of his promise to the Sheriff; but denied
the authority of the Court, and declared that the magistrates had no
right to hold a Court. He added, however, that to prevent confu-
sion, he agreed that the magistrates might act as a Court in all
matters which might be submitted to them by the acquiescence of
the people, until he should receive instructions to the contrary. To
this the magistrates replied, that their authority rested on the legis-
lative authority of Pennsylvania; that it had been regularly exercised;
that they would continue to exercise it in the same regular manner,
and that they would do all in their power to preserve the public
tranquillity. They added, in conclusion, an assurance that the pro-
vince of Pennsylvania would use every exertion to accommodate
differences, by fixing a temporary boundary until the true one could
be ascertained.

On the eighth of April, the Justices, ^Eneas Mackay, Devereux
Smith, and Andrew M'Farlane, returned from the Court to Pitts-
burgh, where they resided, and on the next day they were arrested
by Connolly's Sheriff, and on refusing to give bail, were sent off
under guard to Staunton, in Virginia. After traveling one day to-
gether, Mr. Mackay got permission to go by the way of Williams-
burgh to see Lord Dunmore; and after some conversation with him,
his Lordship wrote to the Sheriff requesting him to permit the
prisoners to return home, and saying, "I will be answerable for their
appearance, in case it be required." Mackay immediately proceeded
to Staunton; and in a letter dated at that place, on the fifth of May,
he informed Gov. Penn that he and his fellow-prisoners were to set
out on their homeward journey, forthwith. On the 19th day of
April, intelligence of the arrest of the Justices reached the Governor;

11

and on the 21st, at a meeting of the Council, it was determined to
send two Commissioners to Virginia, to represent to the government
there, the ill consequences which may ensue if an immediate stop be
not put to the disorders which then existed in the West, and to con-
sult upon the most proper means for establishing peace and good
order in that quarter.

James Tilghman and Andrew Allen were appointed, with instruc-
tions, first, to request the Governor of Virginia to unite with the
Proprietaries of Pennsylvania to petition His Majesty in Council, to
appoint Commissioners to run the boundary-line; the expense to be
equally borne by the two Colonies; second, to use every exertion
to induce the Governor to agree to some temporary line; but in no
event to assent to any line which would give Virginia jurisdiction of
the country on the East side of the Monongahela river.

The Commissioners arrived at Williamsburgh on the 19th of May,
and on the 21st had an oral conference with the Governor; in which
he expressed his willingness to join in an application to the King, to
appoint Commissioners to settle the boundary; but also declared, that
Virginia would defray no part of the expense. As to the temporary
line, he desired the Commissioners to make their propositions in

writing.

In compliance with this request, they, on the 23d, addressed him a
letter containing the following proposition: — "That a survey be taken
by Surveyors, to be appointed by the two Governments, with as
much accuracy as may serve the present purpose, of the courses of
the Delaware, from the mouth of Christiana creek, or near it, where
Mason and Dixon's line intersects the Delaware, to that part of said
river which lies in the latitude of Fort Pitt, and as much farther as
may be needful for the present purpose. That the line of Mason and
Dixon be extended to the distance of five degrees of longitude from
the Delaware; and that from the end of said five degrees, a line or
lines, corresponding to the courses of the Delaware, be run to the
river Ohio, as nearly as may be, at the distance of five degrees from
said river in every part." And that the extension of Mason and
Dixon's line, and the line or lines corresponding to the courses of the
Delaware, be taken as the line of jurisdiction, until the boundary can
be run and settled by Royal authority.

Lord Dunmore, in his reply, dated 24th May, contended that the
Western boundary could not be of "such an inconvenient and difficult

12

to be ascertained shape," as it would be if made to correspond to the
courses of the Delaware. He thought that it should be a meridian
line, at the distance of five degrees from the Delaware, in the forty-
second degree of latitude.

He then, after some arguments which* it is unnecessary to recite,
remarked, that unless the Commissioners could propose some plan
that favored as much the sentiments of the government of Virginia as
of Pennsylvania, he saw that no accommodation could be entered into
previous to the King's decision. The Commissioners, in their reply
of the 26th, say, that for the purpose of producing harmony and
peace, "we shall be willing to recede from our Charter bounds, so far
as to make the river Monongahela, from the line of Mason and Dix-
on, the Western boundary of jurisdiction, which would at once settle
our present dispute, without the great trouble and expense of running
lines, or the inconvenience of keeping the jurisdiction in suspense."

On the same day, Lord Dunmore replied in a long letter, manifes-
ting throughout a most uncourteous and rude spirit. The following
are the most material passages, showing, as they do, that further cor-
respondence with him was utterly useless: —

" And what were your proposals to reconcile these difficulties?
Why, in your first, you propose that every thing shall be given up to
Pennsylvania; and in your second, that Virginia shall be content,
without having any thing given up to it: at least, I can find nothing
given up by your proposal of the Monongahela, &c. What else then
can I conclude, but that no real intention is meant to avoid the great
and reciprocal inconveniences of a doubtful boundary," &c. Further
on he says, — "Your resolution, with respect to Fort Pitt, (the juris-
diction over which place, I must tell you, at all events, will not be
relinquished by this Government, without His Majesty's orders,)
puts an entire stop to further treaty."

On the 27th, the Commissioners, in a brief reply, state, that the
determination of his Lordship not to relinquish Fort Pitt, puts a pe-
riod to the treaty.

After a careful perusal of this correspondence, and an attentive con-
sideration of Lord Dunmore's conduct in 1774 and 1775, the conclu-
sion is forced upon the mind, that he was a very weak and arbitrary
man, or else that the suspicion, then entertained, that he wished to
promote ill will and hostility between the Pennsylvanians and Vir-
ginians, as well as between the Indians and whites, was well founded.

13

During the whole of this correspondence, this place was called Fort
Pitt; the new name of Fort Dunmore was never mentioned. The
Commissioners, in their first letter, gave it the old name, and Dun-
more did the same in his letters to them; although he had before
recognized the new name bestowed by Connolly.

This negotiation having thus failed, Connolly continued to domi-
neer with a high-hand at Fort Pitt. In a letter from JSneas Mackay
to Governor Penn, dated June 14th, 1774, we find the following
strong and emphatic language: — "The deplorable state of affairs in
this part of your government, is truly distressing. We are robbed,
insulted and dragooned by Connolly and his militia, in this place and

its environs."

To form an adequate conception of the condition of the inhabitants
in this place, at that time, we must take into view, not only the op-
pressive conduct of Connolly, but also bear in mind that the war of
the Revolution was rapidly approaching, and that hostilities between
the Indians and Virginians, were actually raging at that time. The
Indians, it is true, were understood to say that they would not touch
the Pennsylvanians; but still they must have felt much of the em-
barrassments arising out of the Indian war. So great was the anxiety
and distress of the adherents of the Proprietary, that they at one time
thought seriously of leaving this place, and removing to Kittanning,
which lay in another manor. Another project Avas, to raise a stockade
around the town of Pittsburgh, being that part of our city which lies
between Water and Second Streets, and Market and Ferry streets.
Neither project was carried into execution, and I merely refer to
them as signs of the times, and as evidences of the state of feeling
then prevailing here.

On the 8th of September, the Earl of Dartmouth, one of the Secre-
taries of State, wrote a letter to Lord Dunmore, containing some items
of intelligence, in relation to this place, which are of interest as form-
ing a part of the history of Fort Pitt, and of the controversy. After
stating that the Governor of Pennsylvania had attributed the hostility
of the Indians, to the unprovoked attacks upon them by the Virgin-
ians, and had also alleged that a party of Virginians had attacked and
wounded some Indians, who, at the risk of their lives, had escorted
some traders to Pittsburgh, he proceeds to say, — "My intelligence,
through a variety of other channels, confirms these facts." He fur-
ther adds, that he is informed, that "one Connolly, using your Lord-

14

ship's name, and pleading your authority, has presumed to re-estab-
lish the Fort at Pittsburgh, which had been demolished by the King's
express order." He then concludes by stating, that he gives this in-
formation so that "the facts asserted, if not true, may be contradicted
by his Lordship's authority; but if true, which he cannot suppose,
such steps may be taken as the King's dignity and justice shall dic-
tate."

The publication of this letter should have exonerated the British

ministry from all suspicion of countenancing the scheme attributed
to Dunmore or Connolly, of exciting ill blood and war between the
Indians and whites.

On the seventeenth of September, Lord Dunmore being at this
place preparing for his expedition against the Indians, issued a pro-
clamation, dated at Fort Dunmore, reciting that, "Whereas, the
ancient claim laid to this country by the Colony of Virginia, founded
upon reason, upon pre-occupancy, and the general acquiescence of
all persons, together with the instructions I have lately received, to
take this country under my administration; and the evident injustice
manifestly offered to His Majesty, by the immediate strides taken by
the Proprietors of Pennsylvania, in prosecution of their wild claim,
demand an immediate remedy." He then calls on all His Majesty's
subjects West of Laurel Hill, to pay due respect to that procla-
mation, prohibiting the execution of any act of authority on behalf
of the province of Pennsylvania, at their peril; but, on the contrary,
that due regard and entire obedience be paid to the laws of His
Majesty's Colony of Virginia, &c.

On the twelfth of October, Gov. Penn issued another proclama-
tion, which is of too great length to be inserted here. In reply,
however, to that portion of Lord Dunmore's proclamation, which
speaks of the "general acquiescence of all persons" in the claim of
Virginia, he mentions that, "in an act passed at the very last session
of Parliament, for the government of Quebec, the Western extent
of the Charter to Penn is fully recognized; said province being de-
scribed as being bounded by the Northern and Western bounds of
Pennsylvania. Wherefore there is reason to infer, that any instruc-
tions to the Governor of Virginia, to take that country under his
administration, must be founded on some misrepresentation respect-
ing the Western extent of Pennsylvania." It concludes by calling
on all persons West of Laurel Hill, to retain the settlements made

15

under that province, and to pay due obedience to the laws of that
province; and by charging all magistrates to proceed as usual in the
administration of justice.

On Nov. 12th, Connolly sent out a warrant for a Mr. Scott to ap-
pear and answer for a number of offences, charged to have been com-
mitted while acting under authority from Pennsylvania. Mr. Scott re-
fused to pa'y any attention to this warrant; and on the same day a num-
ber of armed men came to his house and carried him to Fort Burd,
now Brownsville, where he was required either to enter into recog-
nizance with two sureties, to appear at the next Court, to be held at
Pittsburgh for the county of Augusta, Dec. 20th, 1774, or at any future
day when the Court should be held there; or else be committed to
prison. Mr. Scott gave the required bail; but I have not been able
to ascertain the final disposition of his case; though, I presume, the
prosecution was abandoned under the subsequent recommendation
of the Delegates in Congress, from these two States.

On the twenty-fourth of November, a party of armed men under
command of Connolly, went to Hanna's town, and released two
prisoners confined in the jail under execution.

In January, 1775, information being given to the Executive Coun-
cil, that William Crawford, the President Judge of Westmoreland
County, had joined the Virginians in opposing the jurisdiction of
Pennsylvania; the Council advised the Governor to supersede him
in his office as Judge; which was done forthwith.

On the 7th of February, another party of armed men went to Han-
na's town, broke open the jail, and released three prisoners. Benja-
min Harrison, a son-in-law of Crawford, commanded this party,
Connolly having, some days before, started for Williamsburg. In
April and May, three of the Pennsylvania magistrates were arrested
and held in custody for performing the duties of their offices.

The power of Lord Dunmore and his agent, Connolly, was, how-
ever, fast drawing to a close. On the 8th of June, the former aban-
doned his palace in Williamsburg, and took refuge on board the
Fowey man-of-war, where soon after he was joined by Connolly,
who was then busily engaged in planning an attack upon the West-
ern frontier.

The continual collisions and disorder at Pittsburgh could not fail to
attract the attention of all the patriotic citizens of the two States, and
on the 25th of July, 1775, the Delegates in Congress, including

16

among others, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, aiid Benjamin
Franklin, united in a circular, urging the people in the disputed re-
gion, to mutual forbearance.- In that circular was the following lan-
guage:— "We recommend it to you, that all bodies of armed men,
kept up by either party, be dismissed: and that all those on either
side, who are in confinement, or on bail, for taking part in the contest,
be discharged."

There were no armed men maintained by the Pennsylvanians; so
that the expression about "either party," was probably only used to
avoid the appearance of invidiousness; and Connolly and his men had
taken effectual measures for the release of Virginians from confine-
ment.

On the 7th of August, the following resolution was adopted by the

Virginia Provincial Convention, which had assembled at Williams-
burg, on the first of that month: —

"Resolved, That Captain John Neville be directed to march with
his company of one hundred men, and take possession of Fort Pitt,
and that said company be in the pay of the Colony from the time
of their marching."

The arrival of Captain Neville at Fort Pitt seems to have been en-
tirely unexpected to the Pennsylvanians, and to have created consid-
erable excitement. Commissioners appointed by Congress, were
then here to hold a treaty with the Indians, and Mr. St. Clair, in a
letter to John Penn, dated 17th September, has the following re-
marks: "The treaty is not yet opened, as the Indians are not yet

come in; but there are accounts of their being on the way, and well
disposed. We have, however, been surprised by a manoeuvre of the
people of Virginia, that may have a tendency to alter their disposition.

"About one hundred armed men marched from Winchester, and
took possession of the Fort on the llth instant, which has so much
disturbed the Delegates from the Congress, that they have thoughts
of moving some place else to hold the treaty.

"This step has already, as might be expected, served to exasperate
the dispute between the inhabitants of the country, and entirely des-
troyed the prospect of a cessation of our grievances, from the salutary
and conciliating advice of the Delegates in their circular letter."

There is, perhaps, some difficulty in reconciling the conduct of the
Virginia Convention, in ordering Captain Neville to Fort Pitt, with
the recommendation of the Virginia and Pennsylvania Delegates in

17

Congress, that "all bodies of armed men in pay, of either party,"
should be discharged. No doubt, however, this only referred to bo-
dies of armed men, kept up by the Virginians or Pennsylvanians in
the disputed region. Mr. St. Clair seems always to have been very
watchful of the interests of Pennsylvania during the controversy; and
no doubt, the surprise expressed by him was unaffected; and yet there
were strong reasons why Fort Pitt should be promptly occupied by
troops in the confidence of the Whigs of the Revolution. The war
for independence had commenced by the actions at Lexington and
Bunker Hill; and Connolly, a bold, able and enterprising man, was
busy arranging some scheme of operations, in which Fort Pitt would
be an important and controlling position. It would seem, therefore,
to have been nothing more than an act of ordinary prudence and fore-
sight to send here some officer, in whose firmness, fidelity and dis-
cretion, implicit confidence could be placed.

Captain Neville was then about forty-three or forty-four, about the
same age as Washington, of whom he was an early acquaintance,
and with whom he had served twenty years previous, in Braddock's
expedition and defeat. He had, in the preceding year, been elected
a Delegate to the Provincial Convention, which appointed Peyton
Randolph, George Washington and cithers, Delegates to the first Con-
tinental Congress, but was prevented from attending by sickness.

He had some time previous become an extensive land-holder in the
vicinity of Fort Pitt, and was, of course, interested in promoting har-
mony and good feelings in the region to which he was just bringing
his family.

He was a man of very frank and hearty address, of sound judg-
ment, of much firmness and decision of character, and probably, in all
respects, as well suited to the emergency for which he was selected,
as any individual who could have been named, and who would have
undertaken the duty.

That he acted with great prudence and impartiality, may be infer-
red from the fact, that after the controversy, he, for some time, repre-
sented the disputed region in the Legislature of this State. Indeed,
in several accounts of the Western Insurrection, in which he was a
prominent actor, it is stated that he was very popular up to that time,
but had then become unpopular, because he had voted in the Penn-
sylvania Legislature against a tax on whiskey, and afterwards accep-
ted an office for the collection of a similar tax under the General Gov-

18

eminent. Truly this was going far ibr a reason for unpopularity,
when a very plain and obvious one was so near at hand. In an insur-
rection he adhered to the laws of the land, while a very large majority
of the population were in open rebellion. Even in our party con-
tests, it rarely or never happens that any man is popular in the oppo-
site party; surely then, it would have been strange, had John Neville
preserved his popularity with those who sought his life and destroyed
his property.

As to his conduct in accepting the office, there might be very sub-
stantial reasons for voting against a tax on whiskey in the Legisla-
ture, which might have no weight in Congress. Besides, a Repre-
sentative might vote against a bill even in Congress, and yet, with
perfect propriety, assist in enforcing it when it had become a law; es-
pecially where there was no suspicion of unconstitutionality, as in the
case of the excise on whiskey.

The result proved that Mr. St. Glair's fears were groundless. The
Treaty with the Indians was not interrupted, and no disturbance oc-
curred during Captain Neville's stay here; which, however, was not
of long duration. After remaining here about three months, he was
promoted and ordered to join his regiment, with which he served un-
til May, 1780, when he became a prisoner of war, along with Lin-
coln's army, at the surrender of Charleston.

I trust this passing notice of a near relative, whom I well knew,
whom even in childhood I loved, and to whose cheerful conversation
and well-told adventures, I have often eagerly listened, will be for-
given. As an additional plea for indulgence, I will remark that Cap-
tain Neville was content to serve his country openly and manfully,
and never deemed it necessary to write a book to relate his services,
explain his conduct, or define his position.

On the 23d day of November, 1775, Connolly, and two of his as-
sociates, were arrested at Fredericktown, Maryland. His connection
with the British General, Gage, and Lord Dunmore, and the whole of
his plans for invading the Western frontier with British troops and
Indians, and taking possession of Fort Pitt, were fully exposed. He
was, therefore, confined, and subsequently, by order of Congress, for
greater security, sent to Philadelphia. His arrest and confinement
probably broke up the whole scheme which he had prepared, and in
which he was to be the controlling spirit! Perhaps the conviction
that the whole affair was exploded by the arrest of Connolly, may

19

have induced the removal of Captain Neville from Fort Pitt, which
took place in the ensuing month. Connolly, after the Revolution, re-
sided in Canada; where he enjoyed the confidence and liberality of
the English government.

On the 18th of December, 1776, both Houses of the Legislature of
Viro-inia passed a series of resolutions in relation to the disputed
boundary, taking some new and different grounds, and making bolder
claims than had been urged by Dunmore, or by any other person on
the part of that State at any previous time, so far as I have seen.

The first two resolutions are merely introductory; the third author-
izes the Virginia Delegates in Congress, to propose a final accommo-
dation of the dispute in manner following:—

"That the Meridian line, drawn from the head of the Potomac to
the North-West angle of Maryland, be extended due North, until it
intersects the latitude of forty degrees, and from thence the Southern
boundary shall be extended on the said fortieth degree of latitude, un-
til the distance of five degrees of longitude from the Delaware shall
be accomplished thereon; and from the said point, five degrees, either
in every point, according to the meanderings of the Delaware, or
(which is perhaps easier and better for both,) from proper points or
angles on the Delaware, with intermediate straight lines.''

I have now traced the history of this controversy from its origin,
and have presented briefly, the various claims set up, and the differ-
ent constructions given to that portion of the Charter to Penn, which
fixed his Western and Southern boundaries. Before proceeding fur-
ther, it may be useful to review the different interpretations, examine
their merits, and thus be prepared to appreciate properly, the com-
promise entered into between thejwo States. In this review, a very
striking feature will be the remarkable difference between the con-
struction of the Charter by Lord Dunmore in 1774, and by the Legis-
lature of Virginia, in 1776. Another remarkable fact is, that no one
of the proposed lines would have thrown Pittsburgh, the bone of con-
tention, into Virginia; so that if Virginia had taken as much pains to
ascertain the true state of the case, as did John Penn, no controversy
need have occurred.

The first interpretation of the Charter is that of John Penn, in his
letter to Dunmore. He contended, that at the extremity of Maryland
the boundary line of Pennsylvania should run South to the line of
latitude 39°, being identical with "the beginning of the 40th degree"

20

of latitude, and that then the Southern boundary should extend along
that line Westward to the distance of five degrees of longitude from
the Delaware, and that the Western boundary should be run parallel
to the Delaware; or, in other words, distant from it five degrees in ev-
ery corresponding part. This construction was more fully urged by
Messrs. Tilghman and Allen, in their correspondence with Lord
Dunmore at Williamsburg.

The second interpreter of the Charter was Lord Dunmore. He
scouts at the idea of a Western boundary with curves corresponding
to the courses of the Delaware, and contends that it should be a Me-
ridian line, beginning at the distance of five degrees of longitude
from the Delaware river, on the Northern boundary of Pennsylvania.

He gave the following somewhat plausible reason for starting the
Meridian line from the Northern instead of the Southern boundary: —
"Because the Grant directs that the survey shall begin at a point on
the South part of the boundary and proceed Northward," &c.; "and
it being usual always, in like cases, to proceed, and extend the five
degrees of longitude, and not return to the South point to draw it
from thence." No doubt his Lordship thought that his government
would be considerably extended, if his construction of the Charter
were adopted; for he says, if my construction be the true one, then
Fort Pitt, by the river Delaware running very much Eastwardly, to-
wards your Northern bounds, will probably be, at least, fifty miles
without your limits.

He was, however, not well informed as to the geography of the
Delaware river; there being, in fact, only five or six miles difference
between its longitude at the Northern and Southern limits of this
State. Lord Dunmore does not state very explicitly his construction,
as to the Southern boundary of Pennsylvania, though he does speak
of "the beginning of the fortieth degree of latitude" as such.

The only remaining formal or official construction, is that of the
Legislature of Virginia, on the 18th of December, 1776.

It makes the very first suggestion, so far as I have seen, that the
boundary line should run North from the North-Western angle of
Maryland, to the line of latitude 40° complete; then run West along
that line to the distance of five degrees of longitude from the Dela-
ware in that latitude, and then for the Western boundary; that John
Penn's scheme should be adopted, or as more convenient, a number
of straight lines should be run from prominent points of the Dela-
ware, and the Western boundary be run parallel to" those lines.

21

From this statement of the different interpretations, it will be seen
that the Legislature of Virginia utterly discarded and repudiated the
construction taken by Lord Dunmore, as to the mode of running the
Western boundary, and approved that proposed by Mr. Penn, sug-
gesting, however, a more easy plan. The Western boundary, it
would seem then, was no longer a subject of difficulty in December,
1776, Virginia having adopted the views and opinions expressed on
that subject, by John Penn, three years before; but at the same time,
she suggested an entirely new Southern boundary, and one which
would have taken a considerable extent of valuable territory from
Pennsylvania.

The following Diagram will make the different propositions more
intelligible and satisfactory:

'•• -jkTorr. Plit.
I •-{*

.-.l'0_o— o ,.-4U° /V. L,

\

L,

The plain line, thus

, represents the boundary of Pennsyl-

vania as now established. The small triangle at the North- West
corner of the State, was ceded to the United States by New York, in
1781, and was purchased from the General Government in 1792.

The curved and dotted line represents the boundary claimed by
John Penn. The line drawn thus is the boundary pro-
posed by Lord Dunmore. The Virginia Legislature proposed the

22

line marked thus, — o — o — , extending from the North-West angle
of Maryland to Pernn's curved line, and along that to the Lake.

The break like this across the South boundary of Penn-
sylvania, is the West end of Mason and Dixon's line.

The letters W and F, indicate the positions of Washington and
Franklin.

The Legislature of Virginia, by its resolutions of December 18th,
seems indeed to have yielded the only point about which there was
really any difficulty or doubt, and to have taken issue upon one of
very easy solution. The expressions in the charter as to the Western
boundary, were, " Said lands to extend Westward five degrees of
longitude from said Eastern bounds." Now as the Eastern boundary
was a river, some doubt might well arise on the question, whether it
was intended that a boundary should be run, corresponding in all
points with the sinuosities of that river. I am not mathematician
enough to pronounce the task impracticable; but I can readily per-
ceive that it would be exceedingly difficult and tedious ; and Lord
Dunmore might well express strong doubt that such was the intention
of the grantor.

But as to the Southern boundary, there seems to be no loop to hang
a doubt upon. "The beginning of the fortieth degree of latitude,"
are the words. A degree is not a certain indivisible point, but some
certain divisible space, having not only a "beginning," of which the
charter speaks, but a termination, and that beginning and termination
must be different. A degree of latitude is defined to be the space or
distance on a meridian, through which an observer must pass, to vary
his latitude by one degree, or to increase or decrease the distance of a
star from the zenith by one degree.

An observer under the equator would be at the "beginning" of the
first degree: let him travel North sixty minutes of a degree, or geo-
graphical miles, he will then be at the line marked one on the maps,
that is, at the end of the first degree and "beginning" of the second.
So when he arrives at the line marked 39, he will be at the end of
latitude thirty-nine degrees and "beginning" of forty.

That this was the understanding of that matter about that time, was
manifest in the case of the Northern boundary which, in the same
charter, was fixed at "the beginning of the 43d degree of latitude;"
and no pretence was ever made of a right to go beyond the line
marked 42. Thus if Virginia had succeeded in pushing her boundary

23

up to 40, Pennsylvania would have been only two degrees wide; al-
though her charter says from the beginning of the 40th to the begin-
ning of ths 43d degree. Moreover, if the line of 40 were the begin-
ning of the 40th degree, Pennsylvania, throughout the whole length
of Maryland, has acquired, and now holds territory South of her
chartered limits, and the manner of fixing the latitude of Mason and
Dixon's line, would seem to have been a studied transgression of the
Southern boundary prescribed in the Charter,

The State House in Philadelphia is in latitude 39° 56V 53VV, being
more than three geographical miles South of what the Virginia Legis-
lature called the beginning of the 40th degree," and yet Mason and
Dixon's line was fixed at fifteen statute miles, due South of the most
Southern point of Philadelphia.

Both States, however, were disposed to bring the controversy to a
close, and early in 1779, movements were made for this purpose.

Finally, George Bryan, John Evving and David Rittenhouse, on
the part of Pennsylvania, and Dr. James Madison, late Bishop of the
Protestant Episcopal church, and Robert Andrews, on the part of
Virginia, were appointed Commissioners to agree upon a boundary.
These gentlemen met at Baltimore on the 31st of Augtrst, 1779, and
entered into the following agreement:

"We (naming the Commissioners) do hereby mutually, in behalf
of our respective States, ratify and confirm the following agreement,
viz: To extend Mason and Dixon's line due West five degrees of
longitude, to be computed from the river Delaware, for the Southern
boundary of Pennsylvania, and that a Meridian, drawn from the
Western extremity thereof, to the Northern limit of said State, be the
Western boundary of said State forever."

A narrative of what passed at the meeting of these Commissioners
would, no doubt, be interesting; but I presume will never be had.
A respected friend, in whose veracity I had entire confidence, has of-'
ten told me that the Virginia Delegates were willing to have Mason
and Dixon's line extended to the Ohio river, and that the objections
of George Bryan were interposed, and prevented it. I either never
have heard, or have forgotten the authority of my informant, who is
now dead, for this statement.

This agreement was ratified and confirmed by the Legislature of
Virginia, on the 23d of June, 1780, upon certain conditions, which
will hereafter be stated, and subsequently by the General Assembly of
Pennsylvania, on the 23d of September, 1780.

On the 1st of April, 1784, was passed an act confirming the
agreement entered into between this State and Virginia. The act
begins by reciting that, whereas, Commissioners (naming them) had
been appointed by the two States to meet and agree upon a boundary
line; that they had met and agreed; which agreement was, on the
23d day of September, 1780, unanimously confirmed by this Com-
monwealth, as follows: A resolution is then recited, stating, that
although the conditions annexed to the ratification by Virginia, may
tend to countenance some unwarrantable claims which may be made
under the State of Virginia, in consequence of pretended purchases
or settlements during the controversy, yet this State determining to
give to the world the most unequivocal proof of their earnest desire
to promote peace and harmony with a sister State, during the present
contest with the common enemy, does agree to the conditions pro-
posed by the State of Virginia, as follows: "That the private pro-
perty and rights of all persons acquired under, founded on, or recog-
nized by, the laws of either country, be saved and confirmed to
them, although they should be found within the other; and that in
the decision of disputes thereon, preference shall be given to the
elder or prior right, whichever of the States the same shall be acquired
under, such persons paying, within whose boundary their lands shall be
included, the same consideration money which would have been due
from them to the State under which they claimed the right; and
where any such money hath, since the Declaration of Independence,
been received by either State for lands which, under the before-
named agreement, falls within the other, the same shall be refunded
and repaid; and that the inhabitants of the disputed territory now
ceded to Pennsylvania, shall not, before the 1st of December, in the
year 1784, be subject to the payment of any tax; nor at any time
hereafter, to the payment of any arrears of taxes or impositions here-
tofore laid by either State; and we do hereby accept and fully ratify
the said recited conditions and the boundary line formed.

The agreement of August, 1779, being thus ratified by both States,
settled the disputed question, as to the point from which the five
decrees of lono-itude were to be measured, in the manner most favor-

o o

able to Pennsylvania. Mason and Dixon's line was to be extended
to the distance of five degrees of longitude from the Delaware river,
in that latitude; and as that river reaches farther West in that latitude
than at any other point within the Northern and Southern limits of the

25

State, the boundary would, oi' course, extend farther West, than if
measured from any other point.

The condition insisted upon by Virginia, in her ratification of an
agreement entered hvto by her own enlightened Commissioners, seems
to have been unreasonable, or at all events, it was not reciprocal; be-
cause there were no claims under Pennsylvania, outside of the boun-
dary agreed upon, and many persons who had honestly purchased or
settled under this State, in Westmoreland, Fayette and Washington
counties, were deprived of their possessions by claimants under Vir-
ginia. Much valuable land within our present county of Allegheny,
is held by Virginia titles.

This question being settled, it was now only necessary to mark
upon the ground the boundaries agreed upon.

On the 21st of February, 1781, the President and Council of
Pennsylvania, in pursuance of authority vested in them by General
Assembly, appointed John Lukens and Archibald McClean, of York
county, to extend Mason and Dixon's line to the extent of five de-
grees of longitude, from the river Delaware. Under this appoint-
mentj nothing appears to have been done, and on the 6th of April,
1782, Archibald McClean was appointed again. On the 19th of
February, 1783, a letter from McClean, inclosing a report of the pro-
ceedings of himself and Virginia Commissioners, was read in the
Executive Council. They had extended Mason and Dixon's line, and
run a Meridian line from its termination to the Ohio river. This line
was, however, only looked upon as a temporary one, and notwith-
standing its completion, controversies and mutual recrimination con-
tinued. Virginians within the limits of this State, as settled by the
temporary line, made complaints to the Governor of Virginia, that the
conditions upon which that State had acceded to the line, had been
departed from. These complaints were transmitted to the Supreme
Executive Council of Pennsylvania. The Council submitted them
to the Assembly; a Committee of which body, after full investigation,
pronounced them groundless, and recommended that measures be ta-
ken to establish the boundary line permanently.

For this desirable purpose, each State selected the best and most
suitable men within its reach; so that their work, when completed,
would merit and secure entire confidence in its accuracy.

The Commissioners on the part of Pennsylvania were, David Rit-

lenhouse, John Lukens, John Ewingf and Captain Hutchins; and
4

26

those on the part oi Virginia were, Andrew Ellicot, (who then resi-
ded in Maryland,) Bishop Madison, the Rev. Mr. Robert Andrews,
and T. Page. These gentlemen performed the duty assigned them,
in the summer and fall of 1784.

The Southern boundary of the State being thus extended to its
Western extremity, it only remained to run a Meridian line from that
point to the Ohio river, to close the controversy with Virginia. This
task was committed to Messrs. Rittenhouse and Porter, from Penn-
sylvania, and Andrew Ellicot and Joseph Neville, from Virginia;
who entered upon their work in May, 1784, and on the 23d of Aug-
ust, united in the following report: —

"We, the subscribers, Commissioners, appointed by the States of
Pennsylvania and Virginia, to ascertain the boundary between said
States, do certify, that we have carried on a Meridian line from the
South- West corner of Pennsylvania, Northward to the river Ohio;
and marked it by cutting a wide vista over all the principal hills, in-
tersected by the said line, and by falling or deadening a line of trees,
generally, through all the lower grounds. And we have likewise
placed stones, marked on the East side P., and on the West side V.,
on the most of the principal hills, and where the line strikes the
Ohio; which stones are accurately placed in the true Meridian, bound-
ing the States as aforesaid."

Persons traveling on the Pittsburgh and Steubenville turnpike road,
may see one of the stones a short distance West of Paris, and about
thirty miles West of Pittsburgh.

Virginia having on the 1st of March, 1784, ceded to the United
States all her right to the territory North of the Ohio river, had no
special interest in extending the boundary of Pennsylvania farther
North. The boundary was extended to Lake Erie the ensuing year,
by Messrs. Porter and McClain.

Having thus traced this controversy from its origin, and having, I
fear, exhausted the patience of my audience, I shall now give a
brief notice of the operation which each of the schemes for fixing the
boundary, would have had upon the States.

Had the proposition of John Penn been acted upon, Pennsylvania
would have extended over the whole of Preston, Monongalia and
Marion, a large part of Harrison, and portions of Lewis, Randolph
and Marshall counties, Va.; and on the other hand, she would have
lost the whole of the territory of Beaver and Mercer counties, nine-

27

teen-twentieths of Washington, portions of Green, Fayette, West-
moreland, Butler, Venango, Crawford, Erie, and two-fifths of Alle-
gheny. The townships of Jefferson, Upper St. Clair, Fayette, Moon
and Finley, would have passed to Virginia, with portions of Eliza-
beth, Mifflin, Lower St. Clair and Robinson. A large portion of Ohio
township and a portion of Ross, together with all those entire coun-
ties and parts of counties North of the Ohio river, though lost to
Pennsylvania, would not have been gained by Virginia, but would
have passed to the United States, by the cession of 1st March, 1784,
and would, of course, now belong to the State of Ohio. The plan of
the Virginia Legislature would have taken from Pennsylvania all that
she would have lost under Penn's project, with the addition of the
residue of Greene county, and about two-thirds more of Fayette.

Lord Dunmore's project is not very plain, as to the Southern limit
of this State. He speaks of the beginning of the 40th degree of
latitude, but whether he meant the 39° or 40°, is not obvious; for
he does not say whether the line should run North or South from the
North- West angle of Maryland. In the one case, his Southern boun-
dary of Pennsylvania would have been the same as that of John
Penn; in the other case, it would have been identical with that of the
Virginia Legislature, to Penn's curved line. But as Gov. Penn, in
his letter of the 31st of March, 1774, stated very distinctly to his
Lordship, the claim of the Proprietaries of Pennsylvania, to run South
along the Western line of Maryland to the beginning of the 40th de-
gree, and as his Lordship did never, so far as I have seen, controvert
that claim, we may infer that he understood the words, "beginning
of the 40th degree," to mean the line of 39 degrees.

His Western boundary would have cut off from Pennsylvania a
strip of land four or five miles wide, and extending from the Southern
boundary to the Lake.

The compromise of August, 1779, seems to have been a very fair
and reasonable one. Pennsylvania abandoned her claim to the paral-
lelogram between Mason and Dixon's line extended, on the North,
and "the beginning" of latitude 40 on the South, and from the West
line of Maryland Westward, to the extent of five degrees from the
Delaware, being about 54 miles long and 50 miles wide. On the
other hand, she gained, to the West of Penn's curved line, about an
equal extent of better land.

Both States secured more compact territories than either of the

28

plans proposed by Lord Dunmore, John Penn, or the Virginia Legis-
lature, would have given them; and Pennsylvania especially, has ob
tained the exclusive dominion of the Ohio river for more than forty
miles; instead of having the States of Virginia and Ohio cornering
within six miles of our city. This State has also, by the Compro-
mise, gained the territory along the Big Beaver river, through which
the Canals to Erie and Cleveland extend.

A few brief remarks upon the statements of Mr. Barton, in his life
of Rittenhouse, and of Judge Brackenridge, in his short chapter, will
conclude this Lecture, which has already been extended beyond my
expectations.

Mr. Barton, in a note to his work, says — "The difference between
Mason and Dixon's line and 'the beginning of the fortieth degree of
latitude,' was gained by Mr. Penn, as far as Maryland extended, in
consequence of a compromise with Lord Baltimore, whereby the
latter gained some advantage." "Some advantage," is certainly a
very loose expression for the biographer of an eminent mathematician;
but whe/j? that author asserted that Penn, with the younger grant,
had gained something from an older grantee, it became necessary to
assume that the latter had gained elsewhere, in return, "somp advan-
tage;" but it was impossible to lay a finger upon that advantage.
A loose expression was, therefore, the only resource left. The truth
is, that Penn's Charter would have entitled him to go South to lati-
tude 39° being the beginning of latitude 40°; but the older grant to
Lord Baltimore prevailed, and Penn lost the strip of land from lati-
tude 39° to Mason and Dixon's line, throughout the whole length of
Maryland. Thus Pennsylvania, instead of being three degrees wide,
as the Charter and the Minutes of Council at the time show it was
intended to be, was only a little more than two degrees in width.

Again, in the same note, Mr. Barton says, — "The boundary line
between Pennsylvania and Virginia was continued due West from
the North- West angle of Maryland; instead of then coming back to
the 40° of North latitude; by virtue of an agreement by which the
former relinquished her right to run her Western boundary parallel
to the meanderings of the Delaware." I think I have shown satis-
factorily, that Penn's Southern boundary, according to his Charter,
was the line of latitude 39°; so that it was Pennsylvania, and not
Virginia, who yielded in the location of the Southern boundary. As
to the Western boundary, the Legislature of Virginia, in December,

29

1776, had acceded to the curved boundary proposed by Penn. The
true terms and spirit of the compromise of 1779 were as follow: —
Pennsylvania relinquished her claim to the territory South of Mason
and Dixon's line, and Virginia agreed that the five degrees of longi-
tude should be measured from the most Western point on the Dela-
ware; thus compensating Pennsylvania for what she lost South of
Mason and Dixon's line extended.

Judge Brackenridge differs entirely from Mr. Barton, in his ac-
count of the matter. He says, — "He (Penn) had a right to ran
Soiith, at the extremity of Maryland, a degree." "Then a line due
West to the extremity of the fifth degree of longitude from the Dela-
ware." This is correctly stated, except as to the distance Penn had
a right to run South, which was really about fifty statute miles, not
"a degree." Again the Judge says, — "There was in dispute with
Virginia, a degree of latitude for the distance of twenty-three miles
due West, after passing the Charter boundary of Maryland. The
disputed territory South of Mason and Dixon's line, extended due
West not twenty-three, but about fifty-four miles.**" The Judge's
mistake probably occured in this way. From the end of Mason and
Dixon's line to the South- West corner of Pennsylvania, is about
twenty-three miles. This was run by Rittenhouse and his col-
leagues; and the Judge probably had tpersonal knowledge of their
work, and perhaps supposed that Mason and Dixon's line termi-
nated at the North-West corner of Maryland.

Again the Judge says, — "Pennsylvania claimed a line North par-
allel with the Delaware, but not according to the curves. Virginia
claimed according to the curves; the sinuosities of which river would
throw considerable bays into Virginia. #

All who have heard this Lecture, may recollect that John Penn,
as well as Messrs. Tilghman and Allen, claimed according to the
curves of*the Delaware; that Lord Dunmore insisted upon a meri-
dian line; and that it was not until the close of 1776, that Virginia
acceded to the proposition of a crooked Western boundary.

I have thus given a history of the rise, progress and final settle-
ment of that controversy, which was once the subject of deep and
exciting interest, in this section of country. In giving this narra-
tive, I have labored to make it as brief as the dispute, extending
through many years, would admit, and as plain and intelligible as

30

the short space of an evening Lecture would allow. I have aimed
at no ornament; but have endeavored to give a distinct knowledge
of a stirring incident in our early history; an incident which merits
preservation from oblivion, if not as a warning to our different States
not recklessly to enter into controversies with each other, at least as
a proud example of wisdom, moderation and patriotism, in its final
settlement; an example which every patriot may fervently desire to
see imitated, in all future collisions between the various States of
our beloved Union.